On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, JC Verdié wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> Obviously as you point out, digsig were a nightmare. May be it was us,
> but the spec was not really straightforward to implement and we found it
> difficult.
As lead Editor, I'm really very sorry about this - I strive to make specs as
accessible to everyone as possible, and I'm sorry if what was written was
confusing/difficult to interpret. If there are bits that should be clarified,
then please let me know and I'll see what I can do to improve it.
> On widgets itself, our main issue came from our own constraints (TV
> browser with no chrome ui), it lead to some inconsistencies to handle to
> overall UX. For instance, the impossibility to handle user events on a
> global level so that buttons used for exit or any immediate actions are
> not caught up by the widget, but by the "root" application. We hacked in
> several ways to achieve this but it was a disappointing point.
Right, but this is a platform/system issue (how events traverse through the
system). This was outside the scope of the work.
> I guess what I'm saying is we missed a wider view of how widgets are
> handled, run, die, and interact with the browser itself.
>
> Despite this, it's been very useful to us and we have deployed many
> solutions based on it, so anything that keeps compatibility with widgets
> is good to us
>
Happy to hear.